Why Feminists Should Accept Transwomen as Women

Expect light posting from me until 2006 – I’m just too busy to spend a lot of time on “Alas.” But I wanted to point out this excellent discussion of transwomen and feminism, which took place in Feministe’s comments, mostly between three writers I respect a lot: Piny, Emma of GenderGeek, and Tekanji of Shrub.com. Tekanji, in particular, did a wonderful job of arguing that a definition of “women” that includes transwomen is compatable with, and desirable for, feminism.

From Tekanji’s final post on that thread:

I guess part of the difference in where we’re coming from on this is that you feel that to make a more inclusive definition of “woman” would be to eradicate, or at least de-emphasize, the current meaning. And, I agree, on some levels it would.

But, part of what I see as a gender democracy is that it focuses on adding to existing definitions, not taking away. Just because I choose to work outside of the home and not have children does not make some other woman’s choice to become a stay-at-home mom any less valid, right? In that same regard, the ability for a transwoman to call herself, and be seen as, a woman should not invalidate the womanhood of women-born-women.

Also, on the “helping our cause” area, I disagree. I think that in order to get society* to a place where the transgendered (et, al) are accepted – be they woman-identifying, man-identifying, neither or both – is to get to a place where a person’s choice is not seen as genderdized. In that way, I see the struggle of women-born-women and the transgendered (et, al) to be one and the same: we all want the same opportunities, rights, and freedoms as men-born-men have traditionally have, as well as the ability for the traditonally “feminine” to be seen as something of equal value so that men-born-men can aspire to it, too. If “masculine” and “feminine” were seen as equal, then I am quite sure that the gender binary wouldn’t be nearly as important as it is now. […]

I don’t believe having a less strict (more mutable, more inclusive, etc) definition of “woman” necessitates the eradication of the subtleties of the current defintion. We already have a diverse set of people who fit under the word “woman”, we already need specific subsets to deal with their distinct needs, so what’s adding yet another subset onto that in order to help alleviate the oppression of some of our sisters?

That last paragraph in particular does a wonderful job of putting into words something I’ve thought about this question for years. Like Tekanji, I’ve long been disturbed by a strong streak of transphobia among some feminists; that was a major reason I grew disenchanted with the late, great Ms. Boards.

There’s more good stuff in the discussion at Feministe, so I’d recommend reading the whole thing.

NOTE: As an experiment, this comments thread is for feminist, pro-feminist, and feminist-friendly posters only. If you suspect you wouldn’t fit into Amp’s conception of “feminist, pro-feminist, or feminist-friendly,” then please don’t contribute to the comments following this post.
Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Transsexual and Transgender related issues | 196 Comments

If you have a little extra cash….

I’m so lazy, I’m just gonna quote Bitch PhD:

Group hugs are nice and warm, but not quite warm enough for Chicago in winter without a water heater. Flea’s went out. Her paypal tip jar helped her buy a new one, but she’s “saving up” to have a plumber install it. However long it takes to save up for hot water when you’ve got two kids in midwinter is too damn long–so if any of you have a li’l extra Christmas cash, I know flea would really appreciate any donations.

Flea, as I’m sure you all know, is the blogosphere’s best storyteller, bar none. I’m a fan of her blog, and I assume I’m not the only one on “Alas.”

I made a sadly small donation, which is pretty much what I could afford. But if a bunch of us make sadly small donations, it might add up….

Posted in Whatever | 6 Comments

Why Alas Needs Radical Feminist Woman Only Threads

A while back, after I’d participated in some fairly intense threads here at Alas defending woman-only space in general, and woman-only internet boards (mine, in particular), Amp asked me if I’d like to start blogging regularly on Alas. I’ve been thinking about his invitation for some time now, and a couple of times I’ve written something, even threatened Amp that I was about to begin. Each time, though, I’ve ultimately decided not to, for the same reasons I haven’t posted at Alas for a long, long, time. There are just so many anti-feminist posters here. There are way too many men here, and too many of them seem to be here for the express purpose of making feminist discussion unlikely to impossible. It seemed too likely to me that attempting serious feminist discussion here would be like trying to have a conversation in a bar while the band was playing, just too frustrating.

A couple of days ago, Ginmar posted to my boards, alerting me to the treatment she was receiving here and to the fact that she had finally left Alas. I read her blog, then came here and read the various threads she’d described. There it all was in familiar detail, the same dynamics I’ve seen play out over the years on so many boards where feminists have attempted to gather: the trolling, the misogyny, the endless diversion,the ongoing defenses of indefensible anti-feminist, anti-woman behaviors, and always a tiny number of dogged and persevering radical feminist militants who are relentlessly baited and goaded, to the point they respond decisively, vehemently, passionately, even angrily and (gasp) stridently, at which point all hell breaks loose, they end up accused of being “bullying” or “silencing” or “overbearing” or “domineering” or “rude” and “uncivil,” to the point that, as with Ginmar, they end up leaving the boards entirely (or being banned). Which means, of course, that the radical feminist voice and presence is ultimately silenced, erased. In fact, what I described in the first paragraph of this post is my own silencing here. Ginmar was more persevering than I was, but her voice here has also been successfully silenced. There are a tiny number of radical feminists remaining here now.

I first encountered Amp on the old Ms boards, where there were the same ongoing problems with trolls, men’s rights activists, anti-feminists, libertarians, conservatives. Eventually, frustrated with how difficult it was to simply engage feminist women over issues of importance to us, I began what became a series of over 50 woman-only threads expressly for radical feminist women. Lots of people on the Ms boards, including feminist women, objected to those threads at first, but over time, their value became apparent even to those who at first opposed them. In the woman-only, radical feminist women’s space threads, women were at last able to enjoy serious discussions of feminist issues with far fewer of the intrusions and obfuscations typical of those who were on the Ms boards with one purpose and goal in mind: to silence and erase the voices of feminists, and especially feminist radicals, militants and separatists.

I think it’s great that Amp has revised the moderation policies here to make separate threads for men’s rights people and anti-feminists. I think that is definitely a step in the right direction. I would like to propose the creation of woman-only, radical feminist threads here as well, of the type some of us enjoyed back in the old Ms boards days, of the type we enjoy every day on my own boards. It seems to me that if space can be made for anti-feminists and fathers’ rights trolls here, it might make sense to make similar space for those of us who are radical feminists, separatists, and militants. I think it’s a shame that our presence on these boards is all but gone. Feminist women who share our politics and beliefs and history created a revolution in our time on behalf of the people of women, first and foremost, but ultimately benefitting all people — men, women, and children, and creatures and the earth as well. It seems to me that space should be made here for the kinds of discussions and discourses which have changed and are changing the world.

Woman-only, radical feminist space here won’t prevent anyone from discussing the issues we raise (in other threads which they create). What it will ensure is that our voices are not silenced and erased completely. And it might work to minimize the provocations which inexorably lead to flame wars and targeting and the uncivil posting styles which are often criticized here. So whaddya say, Amp? I’m pretty sure this isn’t what you anticipated I might post as a first post to your blog! It’s just that I haven’t been up for dealing with men’s rights guys and anti-feminists and trolls. I’ve done that to death and can’t give it my energy anymore. But I’d sure be up for creating a new space here for those who share my own separatist, radical, and militant feminist politics. I’d enjoy engaging the issues raised in the radical feminist threads outside of those threads here as well. And for what it’s worth, I’m betting the discussion which ensues now will be interesting.

Heart (Cheryl)
http://www.womensspace.org ( The Margins)

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 442 Comments

Race, Class and Second Chances

Over at Blackprof, Dorothy Roberts is discussing drugs and the achievement gap between black and white kids:

Last night I heard a program on NPR’s All Things Considered, “Teen Abuse of Painkiller OxyContin on the Rise,” reporting a new survey showing that 1 in 20 high school seniors acknowledges taking the highly additive prescription painkiller OxyContin. The program featured interviews with a group of white, middle- and upper-class teenagers enrolled in a drug-treatment clinic at Children’s Hospital in Boston and their parents. The teens told about their addictions to OxyContin, which sometimes led to heroin, and the crime sprees they went on to support their habits. […]

What struck me most about the NPR program was its totally sympathetic stance toward the plight of these teens and their parents. The interviewer never asked the teens if they had a problem with acting “white” or their parents why they didn’t motivate and supervise their children like “Asian parents.” There was not even a hint of blame for anyone: as one mother said, these children just “got grabbed by something that was greater than [them].” Nor was there any indication that any of the teens had been in trouble with the law for their crimes or placed in foster care for their parents’ neglect. Most will probably complete the drug treatment program, graduate from their highly-ranked suburban high schools, and go on to college, their brush with drug addiction and crime a forgiven momentary lapse in their privileged path to success.

Can you imagine a similarly sympathetic discussion of addiction, drug dealing, and theft with a group of black teenagers and their parents?

One of the major ways that kids are treated differently in the US – by race and by class – is how many chances the kids get. A white, upper-class kid can mess up his life countless times and still pretty much count on being rescued and given another chance. If he does poorly in school, he gets specialized tutoring, rather than being written off and permanently slow-tracked. If she gets caught shoplifting or drugging or stealing, she’ll get a slap on the wrist or maybe some community service – if her case is ever brought to court at all. Rescue efforts are organized to get the kid back on the “right” track. Much of the time, well-off white kids simply aren’t allowed to fail.

How much does it take to get a kid written off as a hopeless case? Much, much less if the kid is poor, and less still if the kid is poor and Black. How much better would Black kids be if they were allowed to fail and be rescued as often as White kids are? I’d like to find out.

(By the way, the comments discussion at Blackprof is pretty interesting, too).

Posted in Race, racism and related issues | 13 Comments

The Ten Worst Americans

Alexandra at All Things Beautiful is asking bloggers to list who they think are the ten worst Americans of all time. Too many of the lists so far, both left and right, are both too partisan and too recent.

(Protein Wisdom’s list is hilarious, by the way.)

I can’t think of ten offhand, but I’m sure you folks can suggest some more.

Let’s see….

1) General Jeffrey Amherst (after whom town and college are named), for giving smallpox-infested blankets to Indians. From a letter he wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet in 1763: “”Could it not be contrived to send the ‘smallpox’ among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them…. You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can move to extirpate this execrable race. I should be very glad to hear your scheme for hunting them down by dogs could take effect.”

2) President Andrew Jackson. The Trail of Tears alone is enough to get this racist madman on the list. Although arguably General Winfield Scott, who was more directly responsible for the Trail of Tears, deserves the spot more. Call this one a toss-up.

3) How about a simple serial killer? H. H. Holmes may have killed as many as 150 people, torturing some of them first. He seemed to kill men as part of elaborate scams, children for convenience, and women because he just liked killing women. His elaborate deathtrap-filled Chicago mansion burned down not long after he was arrested; the site is a post office now.

4) Texas cop Tom Coleman, who railroaded dozens of people (mostly black men) into prison on trumped-up drug charges so he could be a big man at the station house. Seems a little petty to include him on a list with mass-murderers, I admit, and maybe I’ll replace him with someone Ever So Much More Evil later. But I just hate this dude.

5) J. Edgar Hoover. “McCarthyism” should have been called “Hooverism”; Hoover, like McCarthy, was a strong believer in using the power of the government to crush dissent and ruin lives. But unlike McCarthy, he was smart enough to keep himself in the saddle for decades. Although hateful towards civil rights, he did have soft spots for blackmail and for the mafia. (It’s also rumoured that he was a cross-dresser; if so, that’s the only thing I like about Hoover.)

6) Senator John C. Calhoun, America’s most prominent supporter of slavery and arguably the single person most responsible for the “no compromise on slavery! never!” position of the South which (again, arguably) led to the civil war. Fun fact: A Senate resolution in the year 2000 declared Calhoun one of the “seven greatest” Senators ever!

7) In comments, Robert suggests another current-day dude: Fred Phelps, possibly the most hate-filled man in America. According to Wikipedia, some of Phelps’ relatives and associates “claim that Phelps suffers from a mental illness that leaves him unsatisfied with life unless he can be responsible for the suffering of other human beings.”

Post your suggestions in the comments!

Hat tip: The Argument Clinic.

UPDATE: This list by Joseph Marshall, in the comments at All Things Beautiful, features some very well-chosen names. (And I’m not only saying that because some of the names appear on my list as well!)

Posted in Whatever | 61 Comments

International Marriage Broker Act passes! Plus, Bush admin refuses to release rules to help battered immigrant women.

In 1997, Indle King Jr.’s wife divorced him. King had beaten her head against a wall, and she sought and got a protective order to keep King away from her. King felt victimized by the divorce settlement (still does, probably).

King’s first wife had been what people call a mail-order bride. So King went back to the internet and found a new wife, Anastasia Soloviev from Kyrgyzstan. Two years into their marriage, 20-year-old Anastasia King had realized that she married an abusive monster, and was seeking a divorce. Not wanting to pay a second divorce settlement, King recruited his friend Dan Larson to help him murder Anastasia. King, a big man, sat on Anastasia’s chest to hold her down while Larson strangled her.

They dumped Anastasia’s body. Then the newly-single King went back to the internet to find his third mail-order bride.

Fortunately, Anastasia’s body was found before King could close that transaction. King wound up getting a 27-year sentence (newspaper accounts say King’s testimony on his own behalf cleared up any doubt the jury was feeling). The trial was big news in Washington state, where Anastasia had lived, and the issue came to the attention of Washington Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Rick Larsen. As a result, Congress this month passed The International Marriage Broker Act, which requires potential mail-order brides to be informed if their suitors have criminal histories or have had domestic violence complaints taken out against them.

Actually, there’s a lot more to the legislation; Bean, posting on her blog for the first time in months, describes the legislation in detail. There’s too much for me to sum up, so go over there and read her post. From Bean’s post:

This law is most definitely a step in the right direction, and will certainly help prevent some of the more serious atrocities some of these foreign brides might otherwise experience. However, as I wrote in my previous post on this subject, it will not prevent or stop all abuse against foreign brides. Many men (and international marriage brokers) will, no doubt, find ways around the law. And, not all abusive men will necessarily have a criminal record. And, or course, some women may still believe his claims that he has changed, or that the charges were due to lies (after all, why should we believe that women from the former Soviet Union or SE Asia are all that different in their desire to believe men who say they love them than American women are?).

Bean also discusses the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. The most disturbing bit? In 2000, Congress created a class of visas – the “U visa” – for witnesses to and victims of “rape, torture, trafficking, incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation” and a variety of other crimes. U visas are needed; they can give crime victims a way to avoid the impossible choice between staying with an abusive criminal or being deported.

Five years after Congress passed the U visa law, however, the law might as well have never been passed. Why? Because the Bush administration has refused to release rules for U visas, meaning that no one can get a U visa. (Women who would qualify for a U visa have been getting by with halfway measures and year-to-year visas in the meanwhile – if they’re lucky.) Sheer incompetence, or cold-hearted indifference? Who can even tell anymore?

UPDATE: See Ginmar’s post on this subject, as well.

Posted in International issues, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 258 Comments

Civil partnership in the UK

I’m late posting this, but since Wednesday, same-sex couples here in the UK have been able to register civil partnerships and get most of the benefits of marriage. (I don’t know what benefits they can’t get, and, alas, have no time to hunt up a link.)

The media seem to have concentrated mainly on the details of the ceremony Elton John and his partner had, although I did hear one apparently heterosexual man on the radio complaining that he and his girlfriend didn’t qualify for a civil partnership.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 27 Comments

Pseudo-Adrienne Has Left The Building

Pseudo-Adriane and I have decided to return to having separate blogs. What it comes down to, primarily, is that P-A and I want different things from our blogs, and that’s cool. Also, P-A missed having a blog of her own.

P-A has already started posting again on her own fabulous blog, Pseudo-Adrienne’s Liberal Feminist Bias. I’m gonna be reading it often, and I hope you all will, too.

I also want to thank P-A for the sensational job she’s done blogging at “Alas.” Her posts here have, frankly, kicked patriarchal ass, and I know that her posts at P-A’s Liberal Feminist Bias will do the same. Let’s face it, P-A rocks.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 17 Comments

New policy for anti-feminist, men's rights, and right-wing posters

As part of my attempt to revamp the moderation policy, there are now new rules for anti-feminist, men’s rights activist, and right-wing posters. Please check ’em out and let me know your thoughts.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Site and Admin Stuff | 111 Comments

Female Cops Are Better Cops

From Five Before Midnight:

Retention of women in the department and others like it continue to be a problem, particularly during the probational period when women are dropped for poor evaluations for being “too slow”, lacking in “gusto” and other similar reasons. Experts in women and policing state that such terms are code words to promote the idea that female officers are simply inferior to their male counterparts. […]

Which is a shame, because many studies done comparing female officers to male officers have favored the women, including those done on the issue of excessive force. In statistics provided for many larger law enforcement agencies, women comprise about 5% of complaints involving excessive force, 5% of citizen complaints and 2% of sustained complaints. Women engage in as many arrests as their male counterparts and do not hesitate to use force when necessary, but their rates of excessive force are far exceeded by male officers.

Financially, women are more cost-effective when it comes to civil litigation paid out by cities and counties in relation to excessive force, sexual assaults and domestic violence. Although nationally, women are outnumbered by about 6.5 to 1, in terms of law suits paid out, men outnumber women, anywhere from 20 to 40 to 1.

So the logical thing to do would be to hire more female officers, particularly as the department moves away from parimilitary style policing and continues to embrace Community Oriented Problem Solving policing. Yet, the numbers of female officers in the RPD will continue to lag behind those of men for a long time.

The entire post (which covers a lot more ground, including a discussion of the harassment female officers have faced) is fascinating. The comments are also very impressive; blogger Mary (aka Radfem) does a great job responding to some very belligerant cops who post anonymously.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 30 Comments